Pardon me folks but I thought the following was worth forwarding, it
describes my thoughts more clearly than I can express them myself.
Graham
>[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list]
>The automated engine monitoring instruments have a couple huge advantages
>over the traditional approach.
>
>#1 is that they are pro-active. Instead of waiting for you to notice the
>oil pressure slowly dropping to 0 psi, the new systems monitor the
>pressure and can warn you well in advance that you have an unusual
>condition. This greatly reduces the probability of an unfortunate
>outcome. Traditional scanning of multiple instruments almost always results
>in a longer delay in noticing problem condition. Regardless of how the
>"pro's" do it. Time is your enemy.
>
>#2 Analog bar graphs commonly used in these systems can be easily set up
>to allow a genuine quick scan and pilot retention of the status. You ever
>notice how tough it is to remember the pressure values when you normally
>scan your instruments? Most of the traditional instruments don't take
>advantage of our brains ability to quickly understand and retain graphic
>data.
>
>I would discount the con of having all your eggs in one basket. Failure
>of your automated monitoring sys is independent (an unlikely?? Moderator)
>probability. Reducing the time delay in problem recognition is far far
>more significant.
>Incidently, I recommend you get sys that has both visual and headphone
>sound warning. Further, make sure you set alarms at values slightly out
>of normal range. You know, like 14 psi oil pressure instead of 0 psi.
|